Court advises statutory remedy over quashing demolition order; emphasizes importance of adherence to building and safety norms.
In a significant ruling on August 24, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, comprising Justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla, directed petitioner Birendra Prasad Shukla to pursue an appeal under Section 27(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, rather than seeking relief through the writ petition filed against the demolition of his property. The petition challenged the demolition order dated July 10, 2026, and a subsequent recovery notice demanding over 26 lakh rupees as demolition costs.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Vasu Lavania, contended that the demolition was executed before the statutory 15-day period allowed for self-demolition, thus violating Section 27 of the Act. Lavania argued that the demolition occurred without proper service of the certified demolition order, thereby frustrating the petitioner’s right to appeal.
Conversely, the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA), through counsel Ratnesh Chandra, argued that due process was followed, including the serving of notices and a true copy of the demolition order. The LDA maintained that the demolition was carried out after due notice, particularly in light of a fatal fire incident at the building that underscored serious safety violations.
The court underscored the statutory remedy available through an appeal, emphasizing that such procedural routes are essential for adjudicating disputed facts like service of notice and compliance with demolition order prerequisites. The court advised that the petitioner could still seek to invalidate the demolition order through the appellate process, and any consequential directions could be pursued thereafter.
In a broader observation, the court stressed the critical importance of compliance with building bye-laws and fire safety norms, particularly after acknowledging the tragic fire incident at the petitioner’s premises, which resulted in the loss of 15 young lives. The court directed the State Government to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure adherence to safety norms and fix accountability for lapses among officials.
Despite the dismissal of the writ petition, the court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within a week, assuring that it would not be dismissed on grounds of delay. This decision highlights the judiciary’s preference for statutory remedies over writ petitions in cases involving complex factual disputes.
Bottom Line :
Demolition proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Urban and Planning and Development Act, 1973 - Relief sought for quashing demolition order and recovery notice, and for damages due to alleged arbitrary and illegal demolition - Appeal under Section 27(2) is the appropriate statutory remedy.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 14, 21; Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 Sections 27(1), 27(2)
Birendra Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2969221
